Video on contest safety

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 9:41:14 AM UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
Just my opinion, but I'm opposed to ANY hardedck rules.
It just adds another layer of complexity and point of contention.
Pilots need to be responsible for there actions.
If some guy can pull it off the ground at very low level...thats OK with me.
And Look at the non-trend of accidents over the last 50 years, the summary's are all basically the same:
Launch fatality's
Landing fatality's
CFIT fatalities
Poor assembly fatalities.
The numbers go up and down a bit each year, but if you look back at say 1965-1970 and compare that to say 2000- 2005 its about the same.
Look at the recent fatality at Seminole, the guys tow fails for some reason at I think 500' and he kills himself.
Same Sh*t different day.

Gaggles are a problem.
One change I've seen is task callers are much better at not calling tasks with head on legs in there, after that fatality in Uvalde..
Fly safe in 2020
Nicl
T

"Pilots need to be responsible for there actions." This is fine if you want contests to be about who is least risk averse. There is no doubt that outlanding in unsuitable fields are a significant risk in contest flying. Implementing a hard deck as John described is not technically difficult to do, fly, or score, the capability is already implemented in most glide computers. The complexity is a sunk cost for everyone except the contest organizers (a one time/site task of creating the SUA file). Pilots are against it because they like the risk and excitement of the low save and flight over unlandable terrain - or are willing to engage in it to increase their score. If we wish a sailplane race to include as a component a test of low save skill, then so be it. A bit like Russian Roulette though, which I can play at home for far less cost.

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 1:15:58 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 9:41:14 AM UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
Just my opinion, but I'm opposed to ANY hardedck rules.
It just adds another layer of complexity and point of contention.
Pilots need to be responsible for there actions.
If some guy can pull it off the ground at very low level...thats OK with me.
And Look at the non-trend of accidents over the last 50 years, the summary's are all basically the same:
Launch fatality's
Landing fatality's
CFIT fatalities
Poor assembly fatalities.
The numbers go up and down a bit each year, but if you look back at say 1965-1970 and compare that to say 2000- 2005 its about the same.
Look at the recent fatality at Seminole, the guys tow fails for some reason at I think 500' and he kills himself.
Same Sh*t different day.

Gaggles are a problem.
One change I've seen is task callers are much better at not calling tasks with head on legs in there, after that fatality in Uvalde..
Fly safe in 2020
Nicl
T

"Pilots need to be responsible for there actions." This is fine if you want contests to be about who is least risk averse. There is no doubt that outlanding in unsuitable fields are a significant risk in contest flying. Implementing a hard deck as John described is not technically difficult to do, fly, or score, the capability is already implemented in most glide computers. The complexity is a sunk cost for everyone except the contest organizers (a one time/site task of creating the SUA file). Pilots are against it because they like the risk and excitement of the low save and flight over unlandable terrain - or are willing to engage in it to increase their score. If we wish a sailplane race to include as a component a test of low save skill, then so be it. A bit like Russian Roulette though, which I can play at home for far less cost.

I think it is different than on might think.
Removing the scoring incentive to go low looking for lift has merit, except nobody does that intentionally.
If the hard deck is in place I expect that most pilots will continue to try to make a save, down to individual comfort level, for the simple reason that they want to avoid the inconvenience of a retrieve.
Most pilots who got caught by the safety finish still proceeded back to the airport for a more convenient landing. That said, the incentive to take the risk in the first place was strongly reduced.
FWIW
UH

This is something of an endless discussion which comes up yearly. There isn’t one single good solution. And there is debate on whether there needs to be a solution, is there truly a problem?

Leaching is a fact of life and has existed since forever in contests. Assigning start times? There is a solution which emplaces a handicap on the poor guy who is assigned a disadvantageous time. Having an open gate where guys can start at any height is doable. We have had that at the 1-26 Championships and it has worked well with many guys choosing to start out the top.

What about gaggles after the start? Just as dangerous on a weak day where the whole task is flown in gaggles. Give the guy who first found the thermal a bonus, thereby incentivising individual flying? Theres a thought, but theres another level of complication added to an already complicated imop system for scoring.

Hard decks? Legislation to eliminate stupidity? It helps, example finish height limits, but does not totally prevent guys from killing themselves who choose to fly beyond their skill set. Penalize me for my ability to safely make saves? I don’t like it, I already lost a **** load of time falling into the hole I managed to extract myself from. Thats penalty enough if you ask me. Put an artificial hard deck on my particular ship and I would not be able to get anywhere.

How about leaving the system as it is. Ingenious guys can and do find ways to minimize leaching. Weak day gaggle flying is just a fact of life we all have to live with. How about removing all contest letters from ships and scramble flarm signatures? Find me if you can, with only the contest management knowing who is who, Find/follow me if you can figure out who I am in the air. There’s a thought.

Dan

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 10:34:32 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 1:15:58 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 9:41:14 AM UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
Just my opinion, but I'm opposed to ANY hardedck rules.
It just adds another layer of complexity and point of contention.
Pilots need to be responsible for there actions.
If some guy can pull it off the ground at very low level...thats OK with me.
And Look at the non-trend of accidents over the last 50 years, the summary's are all basically the same:
Launch fatality's
Landing fatality's
CFIT fatalities
Poor assembly fatalities.
The numbers go up and down a bit each year, but if you look back at say 1965-1970 and compare that to say 2000- 2005 its about the same.
Look at the recent fatality at Seminole, the guys tow fails for some reason at I think 500' and he kills himself.
Same Sh*t different day.

Gaggles are a problem.
One change I've seen is task callers are much better at not calling tasks with head on legs in there, after that fatality in Uvalde..
Fly safe in 2020
Nicl
T

"Pilots need to be responsible for there actions." This is fine if you want contests to be about who is least risk averse. There is no doubt that outlanding in unsuitable fields are a significant risk in contest flying. Implementing a hard deck as John described is not technically difficult to do, fly, or score, the capability is already implemented in most glide computers. The complexity is a sunk cost for everyone except the contest organizers (a one time/site task of creating the SUA file). Pilots are against it because they like the risk and excitement of the low save and flight over unlandable terrain - or are willing to engage in it to increase their score.. If we wish a sailplane race to include as a component a test of low save skill, then so be it. A bit like Russian Roulette though, which I can play at home for far less cost.

I think it is different than on might think.
Removing the scoring incentive to go low looking for lift has merit, except nobody does that intentionally.
If the hard deck is in place I expect that most pilots will continue to try to make a save, down to individual comfort level, for the simple reason that they want to avoid the inconvenience of a retrieve.
Most pilots who got caught by the safety finish still proceeded back to the airport for a more convenient landing. That said, the incentive to take the risk in the first place was strongly reduced.
FWIW
UH

My support of the hard deck isn't to prevent people from killing themselves.. I don't much care. But I do not want to compete against those with that death wish. I think the idea works perhaps quite differently in flat land vs.. mountain flying. My flying is nearly all mountain flying. A low save out here might be at 3000 or even 4000 AGL - there being no known safe landing site in range from there. Properly constructed, the hard deck would incentivize all pilots to retreat and search for thermals closer to safe (and convenient) landing sites. This is completely fair, unless you feel your only competitive advantage is accomplishing low saves. Nobody gets low intentionally, but some some consistently end up there.

As it is, if there is a cloud on the horizon over tiger country, you know you can make it there but not back, there is an 80% chance of connecting (and a 20% chance of crashing or a 4 day retrieve): there are some pilots that will take that bet. 80% of the time they will win the day. They can do that three days in a 6 day contest and still have 51% chance of winning 3 days and thus the contest. If you do not care about your glider or your health, this is a rational strategy. It is self limiting, but only over a long period of time.

Secondarily, the hard deck mitigates the objections to motorgliders: since the whole contest is flown within glide to safe and convenient landing sites, the convenience advantage of a motor retrieve is lessened. And the incentive to treat the motor as a 'get out of jail free' card on a trip to that cloud on the horizon over tiger country is effectively eliminated.

The argument that getting low and having to dig out of a low save is punishment enough is valid only if all your fellow competitors stayed high. If they were also low, and chose a safe landing site over a questionable low save which results in completing the task, you will be richly rewarded - perhaps with an insurmountable contest lead. Booming days when nearly everyone stays high are not the problem.

Jfitch thanks for the post. We have both had this same discussion before. Competition by its very nature is competition. We all do it for various reasons and motivations. If one is looking for absolute safety in competition just sign up for condor racing and have a ball. As for reality racing you said it yourself, the guy who takes major chances beyond reasonability will eventually 1. Loose, 2. Hurt himself. The odds are against the guy who consistently finds himself digging out of holes on race days. Thats a fact. He may win a day or two, he may even win a contest or two but he will not be a consistent winner. Thats his choice and his problem. Neither I, ssa, nor contest management is responsible for his choices.

Those of us who object to another level of legislation/control are objecting because we object to a “nanny state� mentality that is creeping into every aspect of society. We soar for the freedom it delivers. We race for the measure it gives us of our skills. Some of those skill involve knowing our own capabilities and applying them to the fullest. That may involve taking chances at landing out. That may involve reaching for an area we suspect has lift, getting there low, connecting and moving on. Thats not necessarily luck, thats making an educated decision, weighing the odds and trying it. Those are soaring skills. If we don’t want to test those skills in a contest then it becomes another set of skills we are testing, namely how well we can follow someone else who is making our decisions for us, hence the prevelence of gaggle flying today etc.


I hate gaggle flying, I trust my skills but not those of many of the idiots flying today. I fly my own race and yes it had cost me on weak days but so be it. It is still a test of my knowledge, decision making skills, and my choices along task.

A hard deck is another level of restriction not needed by the majority of racers. The guys who push beyond their abilities will still do just that, they will, as someone else here stated, still thermal low just to avoid the hassle of a land out even if they know their only gonna get distance points n still wreck themselves. Nothing gained by the rule. Or they will find other creative ways to screw up, damaging their ships and themselves.

Dan

I like the :10 minute start separation with “event� designation. We tried a forced-start in the first Sports Nationals, but it was too severe! Contestants picked their launch time, but were required to start within :15 minutes! Gate open with first launch and STI had not yet been invented. Don’t believe we had any leaching, though!
Don’t know about the hard-deck idea.............best to try one major change at a time!
JJ

Jfitch, good post.

From the 2018 discussions and IGC analysis, the risk affecting others in crowded thermals seems like the first thing to work on. Would a 'didn't have to center it' time penalty work here?

The rest (leader/follower and low saves from tiger country) seem more about fairness or safety to self (nanny state stuff). Perhaps if you have a motor and do tiger country things that seem likely to lower your odds of finishing the contest without one, there could be a points cost. The leader follower stuff seems a just cause still waiting for someone to come up with a good idea.

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 1:19:26 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Jfitch thanks for the post. We have both had this same discussion before. Competition by its very nature is competition. We all do it for various reasons and motivations. If one is looking for absolute safety in competition just sign up for condor racing and have a ball. As for reality racing you said it yourself, the guy who takes major chances beyond reasonability will eventually 1. Loose, 2. Hurt himself. The odds are against the guy who consistently finds himself digging out of holes on race days. Thats a fact. He may win a day or two, he may even win a contest or two but he will not be a consistent winner. Thats his choice and his problem. Neither I, ssa, nor contest management is responsible for his choices.

Those of us who object to another level of legislation/control are objecting because we object to a “nanny state� mentality that is creeping into every aspect of society. We soar for the freedom it delivers. We race for the measure it gives us of our skills. Some of those skill involve knowing our own capabilities and applying them to the fullest. That may involve taking chances at landing out. That may involve reaching for an area we suspect has lift, getting there low, connecting and moving on. Thats not necessarily luck, thats making an educated decision, weighing the odds and trying it. Those are soaring skills. If we don’t want to test those skills in a contest then it becomes another set of skills we are testing, namely how well we can follow someone else who is making our decisions for us, hence the prevelence of gaggle flying today etc.


I hate gaggle flying, I trust my skills but not those of many of the idiots flying today. I fly my own race and yes it had cost me on weak days but so be it. It is still a test of my knowledge, decision making skills, and my choices along task.

A hard deck is another level of restriction not needed by the majority of racers. The guys who push beyond their abilities will still do just that, they will, as someone else here stated, still thermal low just to avoid the hassle of a land out even if they know their only gonna get distance points n still wreck themselves. Nothing gained by the rule. Or they will find other creative ways to screw up, damaging their ships and themselves.

Dan

Dan, a couple of comments on that. One: the guy who is always flying low and making low saves will very likely eventually get bit. But it can take a long time - I know several pilots who (the consensus was) where "dead men soaring". Some of these proved the label quickly but for others it took many years. Were they especially lucky or especially skilled? I don't know, but the consensus was correct, ultimately. In that many years, some of them won many contests doing what they do. Good for them, but hard on their more conservative competition. A very common refrain I hear from pilots at my glider port: "I won't enter contests because it makes you do things you would not otherwise want to do." Flying in big gaggles and getting low are the two things most often named.

Contest rules are there for only two reasons: to ensure fair competition and encourage safety. It is a continuum from free-for-all to sit-at-home Condor. The question is, are we in the right place? Your definition of "making an educated decision" isn't the same as mine. Tilting the rules one way or the other is likely to attract one constituency or another. There is no morally right answer, however it is almost universally decried that the number of competition pilots is dropping. If we add a hard deck, we might lose you but gain 3 others - I don't know.

I attempt to fly without uncontrolled risk. That means always being within gliding range of a known landing site (even though I fly a motorglider). A casual perusal of some of my fellow competitors IGC files shows that is not the case for them - they will often be below their best L/D to a safe landing. That may be an educated decision, but it is also a pure gamble on the weather. Hitting on 15 at blackjack is also a gamble (and perhaps an educated decision). Is that what soaring competition should be?

Jfitch, good points your sharing. I talk a big game about low saves and taking managed risks, but I in actuality also fly as you do, having a place to set her down at all times when low or contemplating going into marginal areas. My situation (type of machine and experience) is such that they allow me to venture into areas/conditions which would be very very dangerous for other ships and pilots.

That being said, competition flying is always going to be a very small subset of the soaring community and it is dwindling. That is happening for a bunch of reasons, some of which have always been there. The “gaggle flying is dangerous� and “ competition will cause me to do things unsafe� reasons are old ones and have been debated for the past 4 decades. I think our dwindling ranks is probably more due to other factors: the total soaring population dwindling, and the exhorbitant cost to be competitive are probably more pertinent factors today. I don’t really think any changes in our rules will have a significant factor in getting more or for that matter less folks racing. I know for me, I will race under whatever rules we have. I think you would probable get a similar response from most everybody racing currently. The opposition to hard decks is coming from many of us who are just not interested in any further encombrances to flying how we fly.

Yes guys can get by with crazy tactics for awhile, but as you have related, the piper will be paid eventually. I don’t feel its my or the racing communities job to protect people from themselves. Like I said previously, those guys are going to break rules or commit new bonehead moves anyways.. As for them winning, beating me thru their risky actions, that doesn’t affect my opinion of how I did. I got beat on a day last year by a guy who really pulled a risky move. He beat me on points but I know I flew a much better flight. As far as I was concerned, I won the 1,000 points that day. We all have to fly by our own standards irregardless of what the rules say. Its always been that way and should always be that way.

Dan

Given the controversy over hard deck, it is unlikely to happen in the US, at least until the IGC puts it in under pressure from the Germans and the "fly IGC rules" crowd faces an interesting conundrum.

The video had lots of other good ideas for breaking up gaggles. Some of them sounded too complicated to me, or have perverse incentives -- extra points for being the leader for example.

Two that did sound useful are 1) the PEV 10 minute rule and 2) using the start-finish height difference rather than fixed start height and finish gate..

There have been PEV rules before, where you had to hit the PEV to designate a "real" start. This allowed top pilots to fake a start and shake off the gaggle. That hasn't caught on, I think in part because doing fake starts is a PITA. Hitting PEV to say "I want to start 10 minutes from now", with maybe a 5 minute window after that (or penalites) sounds interesting. What could go wrong?

The proposal that your finish height is, say 3000' lower than your start height has been around for a while. I didn't see the advantage, but now I do. Trying to get the exact top of the cylinder takes a lot of work. If you just finish 500 feet lower, you can start in a more relaxed way. That also makes it easier to designate your start 10 minutes ahead of time . Otherwise you hit PEV and of course instantly the thermal you're in dissipates.

These seem worth talking about and won't offend pilots who like to win by being willing to go lower than anyone else. '

John Cochrane BB